State Bar Of California It Has Not Consistently Protected .
June 2015State Bar of CaliforniaIt Has Not Consistently Protected the PublicThrough Its Attorney Discipline Process andLacks AccountabilityReport 2015‑030COMMITMENTINTEGRITYLEADERSHIP
The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free. Additional copies are 3 each, payable by checkor money order. You can obtain reports by contacting the California State Auditor’s Office at the following address:California State Auditor621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200Sacramento, California 95814916.445.0255 or TTY 916.445.0033ORThis report is also available on our website at www.auditor.ca.gov.The California State Auditor is pleased to announce the availability of an online subscription service.For information on how to subscribe, visit our website at www.auditor.ca.gov.Alternate format reports available upon request.Permission is granted to reproduce reports.For questions regarding the contents of this report,please contact Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at 916.445.0255.For complaints of state employee misconduct, contact the California State Auditor’sWhistleblower Hotline: 1.800.952.5665.
Elaine M. Howle State AuditorDoug Cordiner Chief DeputyJune 18, 20152015-030The Governor of CaliforniaPresident pro Tempore of the SenateSpeaker of the AssemblyState CapitolSacramento, California 95814Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:As required by the California Business and Professions Code, Section 6145 (b), the California State Auditor presentsthis audit report concerning the system that the State Bar of California (State Bar) uses to impose discipline onattorneys who fail to meet their professional responsibilities and its actions leading up to the purchase of a buildingin Los Angeles. This report concludes that the State Bar has not consistently fulfilled its mission to protect the publicfrom errant attorneys and lacks accountability related to its expenditures.The State Bar has struggled historically to promptly resolve all the complaints it receives, potentially delaying thetimely discipline of attorneys who engage in misconduct. A primary measurement of the effectiveness of the StateBar’s discipline system is the number of complaints it fails to resolve within six months of receipt, which it refersto as its backlog. In 2010 the backlog reached 5,174 cases, prompting the State Bar to take steps to quickly reduce it.Although the State Bar succeeded in decreasing the backlog by 66 percent within a year, it may have compromisedthe severity of the discipline imposed on attorneys in favor of speedier types of resolutions. In particular, in 2010 and2011, the years the State Bar focused on decreasing the backlog, the State Bar settled a total of 1,569 cases; more caseswere settled in each of those years than in any of the other four years in our audit period. The level of discipline thatthe State Bar recommended as part of these settlements was, in some cases, inadequate. For example, the CaliforniaSupreme Court returned for further examination 27 cases that the State Bar settled in 2011 due to the appearanceof insufficient levels of discipline. Upon further consideration by the State Bar, 21 of the 27 cases resulted in greaterdiscipline recommendations, including five disbarments. Thus, to reduce its backlog, the State Bar allowed someattorneys whom it otherwise might have disciplined more severely—or even disbarred—to continue practicing law,placing the public at risk.Moreover, instead of focusing its resources on improving its discipline system—such as engaging in workforce planningto ensure it had sufficient staffing—it instead spent 76.6 million to purchase and renovate a building in Los Angelesin 2012. The Legislature approved a temporary five-year 10 special assessment charged to members between 2009and 2013 as a means to partially finance a new building for the State Bar in Southern California, which generated 10.3 million—about 66 million short of the final cost of the Los Angeles building. To finance the remaining cost, theState Bar secured a 25.5 million loan, sold a parking lot in Los Angeles for 29 million, and transferred 12 millionbetween its various funds, some of which the State Bar’s Board of Trustees (board) had set aside for other purposes.We also found that the State Bar did not present to its board an analysis of whether it was financially beneficialto purchase a building rather than continuing to lease space. Further, in its April 2012 report to the Legislature—four months before purchasing the building—the State Bar underestimated the total cost by more than 50 million.Finally, the State Bar’s fund balances over the last six years indicate that the revenues from annual membership feesexceed the State Bar’s operational costs—which in part gave the State Bar the flexibility to purchase the Los Angelesbuilding. Although that purchase temporarily decreased the State Bar’s available fund balances, we found that they areagain beginning to increase. This situation provides an opportunity for the State Bar and the Legislature to reassessthe reasonableness of the annual membership fee to ensure that it better aligns with the State Bar’s operating costs.Respectfully submitted,ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPAState Auditor621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200S a c r a m e n t o, C A 9 5 8 1 4916.445.0255916.327.0019 faxw w w. a u d i t o r. c a . g o v
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
California State Auditor Report 2015-030June 2015ContentsSummary1Introduction7Chapter 1The State Bar of California Did Not Consistently Discipline Attorneysor Effectively Communicate With Its Stakeholders19Recommendations40Chapter 2The State Bar of California Dedicated a Significant Portion of Its Fundsto Purchasing a Building in Los Angeles and Did Not Fully DiscloseCritical Financial Information43Recommendations59AppendixDiscipline Cases That the State Bar of California Opened and ClosedFrom 2009 Through 201461Response to the AuditThe State Bar of California63California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response Fromthe State Bar of California69v
viCalifornia State Auditor Report 2015-030June 2015Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
California State Auditor Report 2015-030June 2015SummaryResults in BriefAudit Highlights . . .The California Constitution established the State Bar of California(State Bar) as a public corporation within the judicial branchof California. With the exception of certain judges, everyperson licensed to practice law in California must belong to theState Bar. Overseen by a 19‑member Board of Trustees (board),the State Bar regulates the professional and ethical conduct ofits 226,000 members through an attorney discipline system. TheState Bar’s Office of the Chief Trial Counsel receives complaints,investigates attorneys, and prepares cases for prosecution, whilethe State Bar Court adjudicates disciplinary and regulatory mattersinvolving attorneys in the State. The State Bar’s spending for itsdiscipline system totaled 38 million in 2014.Our audit of the State Bar of California(State Bar), highlighted the following:Although state law defines the State Bar’s highest priority as theprotection of the public, it has struggled historically to promptlyresolve all the complaints it receives, potentially delaying the timelydiscipline of attorneys who engage in misconduct. One of theprimary measurements of the effectiveness of the State Bar’sdiscipline system is the number of complaints it fails to resolvewithin six months of their receipt, which it refers to as its backlog.Based on our calculations, in 2010 the State Bar’s backlog peakedat 5,174 cases, a 21 percent increase over the prior year. In responseto its escalating backlog, the former executive director issued azero‑backlog goal. This goal quickly resulted in a drastic reductionin the State Bar’s overall backlog of 66 percent, from 5,174 cases in2010 to 1,742 cases in 2011.However, we found that as the State Bar reduced its excessivebacklog of disciplinary cases, the severity of the discipline it imposedon attorneys who failed to fulfill their professional responsibilitiesdecreased. In other words, to reduce its backlog, the State Barallowed some attorneys whom it otherwise might have disciplinedmore severely—or even disbarred—to continue practicing law, atsignificant risk to the public. In particular, in 2010 and 2011, theyears the State Bar focused its efforts on decreasing the backlog,the State Bar settled a total of 1,569 cases, more cases were settled ineach of those years than in any of the other four years in our auditperiod. The level of discipline that the State Bar recommended as partof these settlements was, in some cases, inadequate. For example,the Supreme Court of California returned for further examination27 cases that the State Bar settled in 2011 due to the appearanceof insufficient levels of discipline. Upon further considerationby the State Bar, 21 of the 27 cases resulted in greater disciplinerecommendations including five disbarments. The chief trial counselconfirmed that she believes the volume and speed in processing»» While in 2011 the State Bar drasticallyreduced its backlog of disciplinary cases,the severity of the discipline it imposedon attorneys who failed to fulfill theirprofessional responsibilities decreased.»» The State Bar continues to reportfewer cases than the law permits in itsbacklog—a concern similar to one weraised in our 2009 audit of the State Bar’sdiscipline system.»» The State Bar has not made adequateefforts to align its staffing withits mission of public protection, and itsbacklog of disciplinary cases has grownby 25 percent since 2011.»» The State Bar did not perform acost‑benefit analysis before receivingboard approval to purchase a building inLos Angeles.»» The State Bar spent 76.6 millionto purchase and renovate thebuilding— 50 million more thanit estimated.»» Over the last six years the State Bar’s fundbalances indicate that revenues collectedfrom membership fees far exceed itsoperational costs.1
2California State Auditor Report 2015-030June 2015the backlog in 2011 caused the State Bar to lower the quality of itscase settlements, and believed that insufficient quality control was akey factor that enabled the State Bar to decrease its backlog.The State Bar has also not been transparent in reporting theperformance of its discipline system to its stakeholders. State lawrequires the State Bar to prepare an Annual Discipline Report(discipline report), a public document that it must present tothe governor, the chief justice, and the Legislature to assist themin evaluating the performance of its attorney discipline system.Because the discipline report is the only report that the State Barsubmits to the Legislature that describes the performance of itsdiscipline system as a whole, it is critical that this report containcomprehensive, consistent, and useful information. However,our review found a number of significant problems with theinformation that the State Bar submitted.State law defines the backlog as the number of cases within thediscipline system, including, but not limited to, the number ofunresolved complaints as of December 31 that the State Bar hadreceived more than six months earlier. However, even thoughthe State Bar has met the law’s minimum requirements related toreporting its backlog, it continues to report fewer cases than thelaw permits—a concern similar to one we raised in our 2009 auditof the State Bar’s discipline system.1 In particular, because statelaw defines the State Bar’s highest priority as protecting thepublic, we believe the appropriate method of calculating the StateBar’s backlog would be to include every case that affects publicprotection—a method that the State Bar does not currently use. Inaddition, over the past six years the State Bar has changed the typesof discipline cases that it includes in the backlog it reports withoutfully disclosing these changes. In all years we reviewed except forone, the changes the State Bar made in its methodology resulted inan increase in the backlog it had previously reported for the prioryear. Although the State Bar told us that it made these changes inorder to present the backlog in a more complete manner, additionalsteps are necessary to ensure that its discipline reports containuseful and consistent information.At the time of our 2009 audit, we believed that the State Bar’sstakeholders, including the Legislature, would benefit fromhaving more complete and clear measures of the backlog, andwe recommended that the State Bar disclose the composition ofthe backlog and include an explanation for the cases it excludes.Although the State Bar implemented our recommendation for1State Bar of California: It Can Do More to Manage Its Disciplinary System and Probation ProcessesEffectively and to Control Costs, Report 2009‑030.
California State Auditor Report 2015-030June 2015the two years following our audit, it stopped fully describing themethodology it used to calculate its backlog beginning in its2011 discipline report and for each year thereafter.Part of the reason the State Bar has struggled to maintain areasonable backlog may be that it has not made adequate efforts toalign its staffing with its mission of public protection. To meet itszero‑backlog goal in 2011, the State Bar shifted staffing resources,employed contractors, and authorized a significant amount ofovertime. As previously discussed, this effort often came at theexpense of delivering appropriate discipline. However, afterdecreasing its backlog in 2011, the State Bar generally discontinuedits operational changes; subsequently, its backlog began to increaseagain, and it has grown by 25 percent since 2011. The State Bar’sability to decrease its backlog after making operational changes,and the increase in the backlog after abandoning those changes,suggests that it may need additional staff within its disciplinesystem. However, the State Bar has not conducted any workforceplanning to support or refute this supposition.Further, at a time when we would have expected the State Bar tofocus its efforts and resources on its mission of public protectionby taking steps such as improving its discipline system, it insteadpurchased a 76.6 million building in Los Angeles in 2012. TheLegislature approved a temporary five‑year 10 special annualassessment charged to members between 2009 and 2013 as a meansto partially pay for the financing, leasing, construction, or purchaseof a new facility in Southern California. The special assessmentgenerated 10.3 million—more than 66 million short of thefinal cost of the Los Angeles building. To finance the remainingcost of the building, the State Bar secured a 25.5 million loan,sold a parking lot in Los Angeles for 29 million, and transferred 12 million between its various funds, some of which its boardhad set aside for other purposes. For example, the State Bar paidfor renovations, including information technology (IT) upgrades,to the Los Angeles building in part by using funds its board haddesignated in its strategic plan for new IT systems, intended tobenefit the entire State Bar, not just those working in Los Angeles.The State Bar might have been able to justify the purchase of itsLos Angeles building by performing a thorough cost‑benefit analysisto demonstrate that purchasing the building was more financiallybeneficial than continuing to lease space. However, the StateBar did not perform a cost‑benefit analysis before receiving boardapproval to purchase the building. Further, in its April 2012 reportto the Legislature—four months before it ultimately purchased thebuilding—the State Bar underestimated the total cost of the buildingpurchase and renovation by more than 50 million. Moreover, theState Bar did not adequately consider whether the purchased building3
4California State Auditor Report 2015-030June 2015would meet its long‑term staffing needs and never presented theboard with a cost‑benefit analysis that compared the actual costs ofleasing space versus purchasing a building.The State Bar’s fund balances over the last six years indicate thatthe revenues from annual membership fees exceed the State Bar’soperational costs—which in part gave the State Bar the flexibility topurchase the Los Angeles building. Although the purchase of thebuilding decreased the State Bar’s available fund balances, we foundthat they are again beginning to increase. Maintaining a reasonablefund balance would allow the State Bar to ensure that it charges itsmembers appropriately for the services that they receive. A generalbest practice is that an appropriate fund balance would be no morethan the amount needed to cover two months of operations. Ouranalysis showed that the State Bar’s 2014 available and unrestrictedfund balances equated to between four and nine months’ worthof operations and, in total, exceeded this best practice by about 32 million. Based on our analysis, we believe the State Bar needsto evaluate the revenue it receives and the services it provides. Forexample, the State Bar could work with the Legislature to reassessits annual membership fee to better align with the State Bar’sactual operating costs so that the fund balances do not continueto increase.Even though our analysis suggests otherwise, the State Bar does notbelieve that it has excess available revenue. However, the State Barneeds to conduct thorough analyses of its revenues, operating costs,and future operational needs to support this belief. Because theLegislature must authorize the State Bar to collect membership feeson an annual basis, every year the State Bar risks losing its ability tocollect the revenue that will fund more than one‑half of its generaloperating activities, which makes long‑term planning difficult.According to the acting executive director, the reality of the StateBar’s funding creates problems for long‑term planning, staffstability, and staff recruiting because the State Bar has no assuranceof future annual revenues beyond the existing year, which in turndemands that the State Bar have funds on hand to cover a loss ordecrease in funding. Thus, a funding cycle that gives the State Bargreater certainty—for example, a biennial funding cycle—mightenhance the State Bar’s ability to engage in long‑term planning.RecommendationsThe State Bar should adhere to its quality control processes to ensurethat the discipline it imposes on attorneys is consistent, regardlessof the size of the case‑processing backlog, and it should take steps toprevent its management or staff from circumventing those processes.
California State Auditor Report 2015-030June 2015The State Bar and the Legislature should work together todetermine what cases the State Bar should report in the backlog.For example, one method of calculating the backlog would be toinclude every case that affects public protection that the StateBar does not resolve within six months from the time it receivesa complaint. The Legislature should then amend the state lawthat defines how the State Bar should present the backlog in itsdiscipline report.The State Bar should implement policies and procedures to restrictits ability to transfer money between funds that its board or statelaw has designated for specific purposes.To justify future expenditures that exceed a certain dollar level, suchas capital or IT projects that cost more than 2 million, the StateBar should implement a policy to present accurate cost‑benefitanalyses to the board to ensure that it has the information necessaryto make appropriate and cost‑effective decisions.The Legislature should consider putting a restriction in place tolimit the State Bar’s fund balances, such as a limit of two months ofthe State Bar’s average annual expenditures.To provide the State Bar with the opportunity to ensure that itsrevenues align with its operating costs, the Legislature shouldconsider amending state law to est
The California Constitution established the State Bar of California (State Bar) as a public corporation within the judicial branch of California. With the exception of certain judges, every person licensed to practice law in California must belong to the State Bar. Overseen by a 19‑member Board of Trustees (board), the State Bar regulates the .
practice law in California belong to the State Bar of California (State Bar). Supported primarily by member fees from its more than 260,000 members, the State Bar licenses and regulates individuals practicing law in California. State law requires the State Bar to contract with the California State Auditor to audit the State Bar’s
The State Bar of California (State Bar) protects the public by regulating the practice of law in California. As part of fulfilling its public protection charge, State Bar licenses and disciplines are its primary revenue source. The Legislature is currently responsible for setting the amount of State Bar’s licensing fee
Za odvajače iz mrežice (Koch-Otto York): 0,07 bar . p 1,03 bar: K m s. 1 0,0930 0,0128 . p bar 0,0140 ln(p bar) (31) 1,03 bar . p 2,75 bar: K 0,11 m s. 1 (32) 2,75 bar . p 2,75 bar: 1K m s 0,1123 0,007 ln(p bar) (33) Za podatke GPSA daju sljedeću korelaciju za ovisnost o tlaku: 0 bar .
menu option. For example, to access a File command, press Alt -F. Scroll bars The use of the scroll bars is explained in "Quick Start to Windows 95". Note the Find/Jump Page buttons on the vertical scroll bar. Toolbar Menu bar Ruler bar Ruler bar Toolbar Status Bar Scroll Bar Tool Bar Scroll Bar The Document Window Title bar and document name
The Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California are adopted by the Board of Governors of the State Bar in order to facilitate and govern proceedings conducted through the State Bar Court and otherwise. On September 22, 2010, the Board approved amendments to the rules that govern procedures in the State Bar Court. The
PRESSURE RATING OF PIPE AT SERVICE TEMPERATURES - BAR SIZE 23 c 32 C 38 C 43 c 48 C 54 C 60 C 15 (½”) 55 bar 43 bar 36 bar 29 bar 23 bar 17 bar 12 bar 20 ( ¾”) 47352923181410 . PIPE CLAMPS It is essential that plastic pipes be adequately supported. This will avoid sagging and
1. What is a barrister? 7 2. Eligibility to be a barrister 8 3. The New South Wales Bar exam 8 3.1 Registering for the Bar exam 8 3.2 The exam process 9 3.3 Preparing for the Bar exam 9 4. Bar Practice Course 10 4.1 Registering for the Bar Practice Course 10 4.2 Attendance during the Bar Practice Course 11 4.3 Bar Practice Course material 11 5.
of tank wall, which would be required by each design method for this example tank. The API 650 method is a working stress method, so the coefficient shown in the figure includes a factor of 2.0 for the purposes of comparing it with the NZSEE ultimate limit state approach. For this example, the 1986 NZSEE method gave a significantly larger impulsive mode seismic coefficient and wall thickness .
